@ jakelafort- I think if JP had 10 wardrobes to choose from he would pick one item from each, think himself well turned out and presented but in reality would look just as mismatched as his most of his ideas sound.

What I dislike most about him is that while I would credit him with above average intelligence he is being willfully deceitful in his conversations.

How can a professor of and lecturer in Psychology not know the difference between objective and subjective beliefs. That is Room 101 undergrad stuff. If he sincerely believes that it takes faith in a god to be moral or that atheists believe in a god deep down somewhere in their psyche then he has nothing to offer me. It is such an immature argument that I would find it impossible to take him seriously on anything else. I think even W.L. Craig would disagree with him. I will still go to see him next month debating with Sam Harris but only to hear Harris respond to and hopefully dissect his arguments.

I agree with free speech, but some people are just abusive trolls, and they call this “free speech”. On the other hand, some people just say unpopular things, and if they’re not aggressive about it, this has to be a good thing that their views are aired and examined.

It was S. Fry who won the debate in my opinion when he said “The reason Trump and Brexit are succeeding is not because of triumph on the right, but because of the catastrophic failure on the left, it’s our fault”. The pro-PC team couldn’t even stay on topic.

Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.

“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”

It’s a hard one.

“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”

But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.

“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”

If he believes Dragons “exist” in some way, and witches also “exist” in some way, is he also saying that God “exists” in the same way? He seems to use the word “exist” differently than you and me. He seems to think that things which don’t literally exist still “exist” as an archetype in a way that’s more “real” than literal things. Is that what he believes about God as well?

It’s hard to have discussion with someone about abstract things like God when we don’t agree on what “exist” means.

I agree with free speech, but some people are just abusive trolls, and they call this “free speech”. On the other hand, some people just say unpopular things, and if they’re not aggressive about it, this has to be a good thing that their views are aired and examined.

An American First Amendment lover here. Why shouldn’t free speech include trolling, hate speech, etc., with the only condition being that any defamation be prosecutable with the only defense being “it’s true”?

From our American perspective, it looks like Brits don’t really have free speech, which we regard as the one right that protects all the other rights.

– because the only intention of trolling and hate speech is intimidation and harrassment, rather than communicating ideas or some similar neutral action.

I disagree with the verdict in the recent case brought up by David Boots where a girl was prosecuted for including the N-word in her dead friend’s eulegy Instagram post – the words were inflammatory, but they were quotes from a favourite rap song, and not hate speech.

I would have thought that intimidation and harrassment are probably illegal in the US too.

@unseen – “Why shouldn’t free speech include trolling, hate speech, etc.” – because the only intention of trolling and hate speech is intimidation and harrassment, rather than communicating ideas or some similar neutral action. I disagree with the verdict in the recent case brought up by David Boots where a girl was prosecuted for including the N-word in her dead friend’s eulegy Instagram post – the words were inflammatory, but they were quotes from a favourite rap song, and not hate speech. I would have thought that intimidation and harrassment are probably illegal in the US too.

Certain uses, but not types of speech are are illegal in the US. But we have no prior restraint here. You use the speech freely first, and THEN suffer any consequences. That is free speech.

There’s a case in the UK today where a woman is going to be jailed for posting videos mocking Holocaust survivors, on the grounds of posting grossly offensive material. I think it’s reasonable to be prosecuted for that.

Americans do have restrictions on what they can say in public. The usual example given is they can’t yell, “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater. The difference in the UK is based on what constitutes inflammatory output. The sad thing is that the original protection of ‘free speech’ in the USA was directed at enabling the people to speak out against the government without penalty. Now it seems the populace have latched on to the word “Free” and are terrified of any form of restriction. It’s one of the reasons they have “Flat Earth” societies and Westboro Baptists.

Its a matter of balancing the rights of the individual against the rights of society. These rights are balanced differently in the US and the UK.

I’d really like to hear some examples, even imaginary, of how the ‘free speech’ element of US law (other than speech against the government) has improved something which would not have happened in a place with laws like the UK has.

Strega, the first A. does not bear on saying fire in a crowded theater. Criminal law may have something to say about it. Persons hurt as a result of saying it might have a claim in civil court.

First amendment is a restraint against the government as it relates to “speech”. Speech is broadly interpreted. You are correct that political speech is first and foremost. It is the form of speech entitled to the greatest protection. When political speech is challenged the government has the greatest burden in justifying its curtailment. Constitutional rights are all about a balancing of interests.

The USA in its our firsty is bestie has ameliorated the proliferation of sexual speech. We have a bucket load of religion-dominated areas where the gov. would love to control sex. But our SCOTUS has held as unconstitutional the banning of certain sexual acts and practices.

What we get wrong is protection of racists who are trying their utmost to bring in new racists and to intimidate, harass, humiliate minorities with virulent speech peppered with classic badges of racism. No good comes of permitting such speech. I approve of Germany making holocaust denial a criminal matter.